Red Cescent At Work
The International Committee of the Red Cross is busy doing good things for humanity. This is quite simply what they do. It is their mandate. A self-imposed mandate to be sure, a proud and distinguished one with a proud and distinguished history through disruptive world events of great and not-so-great wars.
The Red Cross, of course, is seen as rather peculiar in some countries of the world which prefer the symbol of a crescent moon, and that is perfectly fine with the ICRC. Mind, it had some problems with the symbol of a Magen David, but eventually got around that.
Israel's Magen David Adom, the Jewish equivalent of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent finally received approval in 2006, receiving official recognition previously denied it by the ICRC, and admitted as a full member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. Although it must use an altered symbol of a Jewish star within a crystal shape when operating outside Israel.
So it can be safely assumed that the Red Cross International is not always completely 'neutral' in its decision-making, however it claims itself to be. As it does now, when it has released information that it was, through its Red Crescent persona, providing first aid training and medical kits to members of the Taliban.
This, the ICRC emphasizes, is their humanitarian goal. To 'save lives in Afghanistan'.
Clearly any and all lives. That they are providing basic first aid training and emergency medical kits to "over 70 members of the armed opposition", appears to satisfy the ICRC's urge to do good in the world. They emphasize their neutrality. They are saving the lives of insurgents who target and kill NATO troops - and not necessarily through direct conflict, but by stealthily and too-often-successfully laying IED devices to blow Canadians and others to hell and beyond.
This makes those Taliban killers. But then, the ICRC obviously rationalizes, so too are trained Western troops. Potentially. NATO personnel may not set out to kill per se, but they will if and when challenged violently. They do not set lethal homicidal traps for the Taliban to fall into while pursuing their business, however. There is that difference. But to the Red Cross or the Red Crescent, it is all the same, obviously.
On the other hand, it might save lives if there were fewer Taliban around and about to pursue their vision of a return to Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Certainly with fewer Taliban in operation there would be fewer deaths among NATO troops, among civilian Afghans who are also targets of the Taliban, and fewer children getting sprayed in the face with acid; fewer children whose lives are impacted by loss of parents.
In their neutrality they are affirming to the Taliban that what they pursue is worthwhile; the religious fascism they impose on a population denying children an education, women freedom of movement and freedom to pursue employment. They impose harsh restrictions on how people may live their lives, and when those restrictions are challenged, torture and death may be meted out. This is what the ICRC is supporting by their 'neutrality'.
How is it possible for any clear-minded, justice-seeking, humanitarian-concerned individuals to handily overlook the evils of violating the human rights of others? By enforced piety; by forcing women to encase themselves in all-encompassing garments lest they provoke the unbridled rage of the mullahs; by forcing young girls to be pledged into marriage and drudgery; by forcing young boys to submit to rape.
If the Red Cross/Red Crescent sees it as their universal obligation to mend the broken bodies of victims of misfortune, disasters, wars, this is as they see themselves. But their notion of neutrality is an evil in and of itself, for they are actively aiding in the vicious subjugation of large segments of a society by a religiously-entitled oppressing entity that has little sympathy for human rights other than their own.
To extend this humanitarian mandate to assisting religious fascists dedicated to violent jihad, to mend themselves through the generosity of the transfer of their medical knowledge and equipment, to enable healed 'warriors' to return to the battle, represents an odd and peculiar and quite unfamiliar qualification of neutrality.
This, clearly, is not an organization that many people who view matters differently would wish to support. This, clearly, is a mandate that has undergone a puzzling and corrosive sea change.
The Red Cross, of course, is seen as rather peculiar in some countries of the world which prefer the symbol of a crescent moon, and that is perfectly fine with the ICRC. Mind, it had some problems with the symbol of a Magen David, but eventually got around that.
Israel's Magen David Adom, the Jewish equivalent of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent finally received approval in 2006, receiving official recognition previously denied it by the ICRC, and admitted as a full member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. Although it must use an altered symbol of a Jewish star within a crystal shape when operating outside Israel.
So it can be safely assumed that the Red Cross International is not always completely 'neutral' in its decision-making, however it claims itself to be. As it does now, when it has released information that it was, through its Red Crescent persona, providing first aid training and medical kits to members of the Taliban.
This, the ICRC emphasizes, is their humanitarian goal. To 'save lives in Afghanistan'.
Clearly any and all lives. That they are providing basic first aid training and emergency medical kits to "over 70 members of the armed opposition", appears to satisfy the ICRC's urge to do good in the world. They emphasize their neutrality. They are saving the lives of insurgents who target and kill NATO troops - and not necessarily through direct conflict, but by stealthily and too-often-successfully laying IED devices to blow Canadians and others to hell and beyond.
This makes those Taliban killers. But then, the ICRC obviously rationalizes, so too are trained Western troops. Potentially. NATO personnel may not set out to kill per se, but they will if and when challenged violently. They do not set lethal homicidal traps for the Taliban to fall into while pursuing their business, however. There is that difference. But to the Red Cross or the Red Crescent, it is all the same, obviously.
On the other hand, it might save lives if there were fewer Taliban around and about to pursue their vision of a return to Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Certainly with fewer Taliban in operation there would be fewer deaths among NATO troops, among civilian Afghans who are also targets of the Taliban, and fewer children getting sprayed in the face with acid; fewer children whose lives are impacted by loss of parents.
In their neutrality they are affirming to the Taliban that what they pursue is worthwhile; the religious fascism they impose on a population denying children an education, women freedom of movement and freedom to pursue employment. They impose harsh restrictions on how people may live their lives, and when those restrictions are challenged, torture and death may be meted out. This is what the ICRC is supporting by their 'neutrality'.
How is it possible for any clear-minded, justice-seeking, humanitarian-concerned individuals to handily overlook the evils of violating the human rights of others? By enforced piety; by forcing women to encase themselves in all-encompassing garments lest they provoke the unbridled rage of the mullahs; by forcing young girls to be pledged into marriage and drudgery; by forcing young boys to submit to rape.
If the Red Cross/Red Crescent sees it as their universal obligation to mend the broken bodies of victims of misfortune, disasters, wars, this is as they see themselves. But their notion of neutrality is an evil in and of itself, for they are actively aiding in the vicious subjugation of large segments of a society by a religiously-entitled oppressing entity that has little sympathy for human rights other than their own.
To extend this humanitarian mandate to assisting religious fascists dedicated to violent jihad, to mend themselves through the generosity of the transfer of their medical knowledge and equipment, to enable healed 'warriors' to return to the battle, represents an odd and peculiar and quite unfamiliar qualification of neutrality.
This, clearly, is not an organization that many people who view matters differently would wish to support. This, clearly, is a mandate that has undergone a puzzling and corrosive sea change.
posted by Pieface | 6:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home